Opions on Neopan 1600?

detune · Mar 22, 2006

I'm thinking of taking my film camera along with me to the next gig I'm shooting and would be keen to try out something like this... any opinions on the Neopan ISO1600? It would be cool to get a few great film shots along with my usual digital work that I have to use.

FYI I'm pretty new to the film world, or more like, have just come back so my film experience at the mo is mainly with Astia...

JeffD · Mar 22, 2006

not related to the film you are testing, but if you are shooting concert picks, where there are "white" spotlights on the musicians on a dark stage, be careful about letting your camera pick the exposure. It will almost always compensate for the dark background and you'll end up with faces of (causcasian) performers totally overexposed. I learned this the hard way, and ruined some otherwise good pictures.

If you are in a similar circumstance, you could manually drop your exposure a stop or stop and a half, or, I guess you could lessen your development time to compensate.

detune · Mar 22, 2006

thanks for tip so far my experience with the EOS3 has shown it to have awesome metering but I'll keep that in mind, the singer I'm shooting is part Maori so she has slightly darker skin which will hopefully help!

Shawn Mielke · Mar 24, 2006

Hi there. I would have to recommend this film, if speed is what you are looking for. The Ilford 3200 film is pretty marvelous too. They are quite contrasty by nature, so careful metering is essential, but the Neopan's grain is so well behaved. If possible, do try to shoot at least one test roll before anything critical.

df cardwell · Mar 24, 2006

If you want a full 1600 shadow's speed, with strong midtones and a low contrast highlights ( on stage that will emphasize your performer and harmonize the brights ) go with Xtol 1+2 for 10 - 12 minutes at 20?. That is Kodak' suggestion for using XTOL with that film, and I think it's pretty true.

kaiyen · Mar 24, 2006

I would actually consider NP1600 to be _very_ contrasty and Delta 3200 to be rather low contrast. At 1600 you have a seriously gritty look with the Neopan. Shadow detail has almost vanished and it's a harsh, stark look. I've seen it mostly in XTOL. I have not shot or developed it myself (major caveat, I know).

The Delta 3200 at 1600, for instance, looks close to full speed with full shadow detail. At 3200 it is still a bit lower in contrast than the Neopan at 1600. I have shot Delta 3200 from 1600 to 6400, all souped in Microphen. Grain on the Delta 3200 is quite a bit higher than Neopan 1600, though - bit, popcorn grain.

allan

df cardwell · Mar 24, 2006

Kaiyen: look at the published curves for the three fast films. it explains the contrast and 'look' quite profoundly.

Also, visit the curves at Foto Import to see how different developers affect the response of the films.

Development isn't just the caveat, it is the fundamental interaction with the film.

Unless YOU are in control of the development of these films, you have no idea what will happen.

.

kaiyen · Mar 24, 2006

I was just offering up my personal experiences. I apologize that I didn't look at the curves first - I don't generally look at curves for film, and I forget that that's almost a pre-requisite to posting on apug . Guess that's why I don't post much.

I didn't mean that I shot it and had someone else develop it. I meant I hadn't shot it _or_ developed it before. The "caveat" was an acknowledgement that my opinion on the results one can get from NP1600 should be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, I was just offering up my opinions based on what I had seen from friends' work (and I do know how they shot and processed it (themselves) from observation and discussion) and from what I had done myself with Delta 3200. That's all.

My apologies if my information was in anyway confusing, detrimental, or misleading.

allan

detune · Mar 24, 2006

Thanks all for opinions.. I dont develop my film either, I've no dark room!! Or the time at this point as I still have a day job. I'm trying a roll of Neopan 400 at the moment, just to see what it looks like, the film camera is only a second body to be used if I have the chance. I'll be shooting digital mostly as always with press type events.
Well behaved grain is what I am looking for

salamandrine · Mar 31, 2006

Hi there.

Don't know if I'm still on time to answer you or if this helps you:

Dead Link Removed

that's the link for a gig in a small bar/venue with very low ligh or only dark red light at times. I shot it with Neopan 1600 on my FM2 and a nikkor 50 1.4.
I was very happy with the results... but i'm a rookie

George Papantoniou · Mar 31, 2006

I haven't done any "serious" research (tests with diferent developers, density readings etc) but my personal opinion would be to try the Delta 3200 film. It might give lower contrast as stated above, but the results may please you more in terms of shadow detail (especially if you rate it at EI1600) and grain. Give it a try and judge for yourself. I did a simple comparative test and that was what came out of it.

I repeat that my research was not really deep and thorough, so the results might be wrong... But keep in mind that the data given for the true (ISO) speed of those films are:

Neopan: ISO 800
Delta and Tmax: ISO 1000

the 1600 and 3200 settings written on the film boxes are suggested EI settings that you may use (for push-processing). This was told to me by an Ilford technician.

Shawn Mielke · Mar 31, 2006

For well behaved grain, between Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 pulled to 1600, the Neopan I think wins. For less contrast, it may very well be that the Delta wins, but not by a great deal. Try them both for sure, they're both outstanding products. I plan on buying both in bulk soon. Careful metering is a must for both. I don't develop my own either, by the way. I have also seen but not experienced first hand a fair amount of impressive, well behaved grain results from Ilford HP5 400 pushed to 1600. One of my next stops...

Russ - SVP · Apr 1, 2006

I really like Neopan 1600. I burn it @ 1250. Great stuff. A little hot though. If it's a contrasty scene, you may want to go with Delta 3200.

Kiron Kid

Robert Budding · Apr 1, 2006

Neopan is nice, but dumped it for Delta 3200 because I wanted a film that comes in 120, too.

detune · Apr 3, 2006

hmm lots of high regard for the Iilford film, might have to try out a roll before I go overseas and see how it goes...

bob01721 · Apr 3, 2006

kaiyen said:
"... I don't generally look at curves for film, and I forget that that's almost a pre-requisite to posting on apug..."

LMAO! Yeah... it is like that a lot. (Chuckle.)

Tony Egan · May 19, 2006

I would rate neopan 1600 ahead of ilford 3200 having used both for live music shots. I find there is lovely shadow detail which can be brought out in printing with neopan. I shoot around 800 iso. I always shoot manual at gigs with priorty on most appropriate shutter speed. With stage lights going on and off and performers in action, exposure is mostly "felt" rather than constantly measured. Mostly develop in xTol but recently tried Tetenal Ultrafin and also got some nice results with that.
I have not looked at curves either but a wise and trusted teacher I know tells me it has "an intersting curve" and recommended it for shooting gigs.

Nicole · May 19, 2006

I love Neopan and use it regularly. One of the nicest fast films in 35mm for my low light work.

Russ - SVP · May 20, 2006

Neopan 1600, is a really good film. I love the stuff. I usually burn it @ 1250, and have it souped in X-Tol. It is kind of hot (contrasty) more so than Delta 3200. Real nice film. Give it a try.

Kiron Kid

DBP · May 20, 2006

I tried Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 a year or two back, but went back to using Tri-X in Diafine @1600 for most high speed stuff. I didn't like the look of the grain of Delta, though I occasionally still shoot a roll (and always carry one when travelling to convince the airport guards to hand check). My objection to Neopan may be a bit peculiar. I find the base too thin, as the first roll I shot tore out of the cartridge at the end. The base actually tore. I didn't think my hands were that strong.

BWKate · May 20, 2006

I also love the Fuji Neopan 1600. I like the grain and it's not objectionable in my opinion. I develop it in Kodak D-76.
You also don''t have to have a darkroom to develop film. I use a darkbag to load my film onto my SS developing reels and into my tank. Been doing that for years. I guess it helps to have a sink with running water too. I just use my bathroom sink and hang up my film to dry over the bathtub.

Shawn Mielke · May 20, 2006

Hmm, yes, well, since this thread persists, I'll chime in, again. I recently got the results in from four rolls of Neopan 1600. I f!#@$%g love this film. So punchy and expressive. I shall be shooting a lot of this film in the very near future. I have yet to pull or push it, though I can't imagine that it would push all that well. It's soooo contrasty at 1600. One of my absolute favorites.

abeku · May 20, 2006

Lovely film! I've been using it during the whole winter. My IE is 640 and I develop it in D-76 1+1 at 20 C. It has a great punch and the grain is so beautiful so sometimes I don't mind make it more visible by using Rodinal.

Russ - SVP · Dec 25, 2006

A very good film.

Kiron Kid

jasparks · Dec 25, 2006

Neopan 1600 is about the only 35mm film I use any more. It has the finest grain of any of the 3 fast films. However, it is only about 800 speed. It doesn't push well. It has a very short toe so the shadows drop to black very quickly. Something I personally like, but doesn't help if you want more speed. I use it as a general purpose film because I love the look, but only shoot it at 800. I wish it came in 120.

If you really want more speed, either Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200 have a bit more real speed and push much, much better. I generally prefer Tmax 3200, it seems to work well in most developers. I could never get a handle on Delta 3200, but kept trying because it is the only one of these available in 120. I found the grain very intrusive and the highlights very flat in anything I used to develop it until I tried Tmax (or Tmax RS) developer. I find this developer ideal for Delta 3200 since it kicks up the contrast in the highlights and gives a little more speed and a little less grain. I actually now prefer Delta 3200 to Tmax 3200, but only in Tmax developer (Tmax developer works pretty well for Tmax 3200 and Neopan 1600 as well).

John

Opions on Neopan 1600?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency